Women Do Not Belong on the Front Line

It has been said that women should be allowed to join infantry. Some go even further to say that the military should stop recruiting men in favor of women in order to increase the low numbers of women in the military.

So for those who think allowing women to join infantry would be a good move, perhaps you should consider the truth.

1. This is war, not a playground for feminism.

Taking part in war is not something you should wish upon anyone. It is a bloody and brutal affair where there is no equality or compassion. You think men shouldn't hit women? Well, tell that to the enemy in war. The enemy will identify women as a weak link (whether true or not) and attempt to kill women first. This is war, this is life or death.

Millions of soldiers have died in war, and even more have gone home with severe physical and mental disabilities. Some of these soldiers, these men, have had to go to war against their will. This is something that women have never had to face, a privilege that women have had.

2. Do women compete against men in sports like football, boxing etc?

I hear no person arguing that women should be allowed to compete against men in these sports which are relatively safe, so why on earth would you argue for women to compete against men in war zones, where there are no rules, where the punishment for losing is...Death

3. Women are not as strong or physically capable as men

Let's be honest. Women are on average less strong and less physically capable than men. It's just the way things are. Now of course there are women out there who are stronger than some men.....But these men aren't soldiers. You will not get women out there who are more physically capable than the fighting elite of the infantry, it just doesn't happen. A man's strength and endurance potential is always going to be greater than a women's. This is only just scratching the surface when you consider other possible factors such as periods that women may have to endure in the field that can disrupt their ability to perform.

4. It will bring unnecessary costs for NO benefit

As has just been discussed, female candidates will not be as strong as their male counterparts. In fact, many women have already tried and failed at selection - leaving thousands of dollars in wasted training. It will also become necessary for separate facilities in the field to separate sexes, which is not always possible.

In order to justify the cost, there must be a benefit. In this case there is no benefit, in fact there's a disadvantage.

5. Infantry is a brotherhood

Women are not brothers. Infantry is a hostile, testosterone filled environment. Where brothers unite and fight under common values and mutual respect. Women would not fit into this dynamic. Women would provide nothing more than a distraction.

I'll draw your attention to this video, where an over zealous female made the extraordinary claim that she could 'whoop' any male marine on base.

As you can see, the result wasn't very surprising to say the least. You might notice how the Marine wasn't punching to his full potential because he knew she was a woman. She wasn't a brother. If he'd been fighting a man, he wouldn't have held back. Brothers don't hold back with each other.

Also note that in the end, she doesn't even have the respect to touch gloves with him after he went over to her. A clear lack of mutual respect, something that would never be tolerated in the brotherhood. Now that's not a slight on women, I'm sure some women would have had more respect, however a man wouldn't dare act like that to a brother. As I said, the military is a hostile environment. You disrespect your comrades, life isn't going to be easy for you, let's just say that.

6. What experience do you have in infantry in order to say women are capable and improve capability?

It would be incredibly ignorant and foolish of someone to tell people that they can do something if they themselves haven't even done it. Are you a woman who's been on the front line? Or do you have no experience whatsoever? Well if that's the case, then I ask you to listen to views of Capt. Katie Petronio, who's an officer in the Marines and has been in war zones.

She is of the very well experienced opinion that women should not be in infantry. She completed rigorous military training alongside men and struggled to maintain weight. In addition to that she experienced muscle problems, stopped producing estrogen and developed Polycystic ovary syndrome, which lead to infertility. Her experience should not be taken lightly or dismissed, these are serious things she is saying and people should be giving her views some respect before jumping onto their agendas.

This has been 6 main points for why I believe women do not belong on the front line. I fully support women being in the military, many women have contributed a great deal for their country and they should be proud. However not all roles are fit for women and it's important that this is understood. Thank you for reading.

there shouldn’t realistically be any massive additional costs. Use the same bath rooms. I don’t know about army sleeping arrangements but I’m assuming it’s multiple different rooms already so just fill them up same sex like a dorm room.

I don't think it's a great environment to have 1 or 2 women sleeping among 15-20 or so men. If I was a women I'd feel quite vulnerable in that situation. It can be quite a hostile environment sometimes.

@1derfulguy I suppose the women who agree with my position, the women who know far more about the topic than you, they must not care about themselves, because they're women? Well I think you'll find it's quite the opposite, they have this view because they DO care about themselves and their fellow women.

I agree with some points you make here, but really not with the way you put it, that make it look like the idea behind it is not of pure typeWhat do I mean? well lets go with these line:"Now that's not a slight on women, I'm sure some women would have had more respect, however a man wouldn't dare act like that to a brother."That is basically a "I am not racicet, but i hate black people" type of line

As you say its impossible a man will have not done the respect, that is quite honestly BS, you will have also man that will not touch gloves with him in the end, also you will have woman that will be able to hold ground with him without holding back

Over all I agree that "Women Do Not Belong on the Front Line" but il also say that Man do not belong on the front line earthierNo one is suppose to be there, been there can mean kill or be killed

So Do i think woman are not suppose to be in the fighting area on the army, no i think they are more then fine there, as long as they are selected as they are the best for the job, not as they have a vagina and same about some that have a penis there

Sex is not suppose to matter really, what is suppose to matter is how fit they are for the job, nothing less nothing more

And for some short replys:1. Agree, and as for that take the best not the man or the woman2. I can beat some man in basketball, some man can beat me, and some man can beat outer man and so on..3. The average dose not matter here, its the single vs the single if you have 20 people joing the army you need 5 and the best 4 are woman, god dammit take them, if they are stronger and better and think faster then the man they be better4. Same will be in taking the man that fail the training, sex again has nothing to do with it5. "Where brothers unite and fight under common values and mutual respect. Women would not fit into this dynamic. Women would provide nothing more than a distraction."So woman can't fight under common values and mutual respect? geez thanks6. And one can say you can't do something before they done it them self? or will that be just as foolish?I have friends that where in active battle servies

Its not about sex, its about what one can doAnd from your post, i think its more about sex, then about what one can or can't do

1

1|0

0|0

myTake Owner

No sex does have something to do with it. Additional costs will be needed for separate sleeping facilities, bathrooms etc. Men are more likely to succeed in training, therefore including women provides no benefit.

The difference between the respect thing is if a man steps out of line, those around him will have no hesitation in punching him for it, they wouldn't do that to a woman. Women do not fit into the dynamic, rather they provide a distraction.

But why even cut it on sex? again men are more likely to succeed but why do we need to test it on the over all of the sex, and not on the spastic of each oneSome woman can do better then some man just as much as some man can do better then woman

And why is that? I don't think its true over all, it depends on how you teach them, and if a woman go in there, she needs to know she will need to have it like every one else will have itIf anyone steps out of line and needs a punching, they need to simply be punched, no matter man or woman

About the separate bathroom and so on... no? ya i mean they maybe not shower on the same place, but over all they dose not need to be that much of an issue, beyond if you create it, the issue really is non-existent, beside who ever said there will be maybe only 2 woman there, maybe you have enught to make a full unit of woman that each one of them are more fit for combat then the man that try in the same time?

First you test, just like you test the man, same level and all one vs one, as in the battle you can't just fight the same to youSecond of all will you say cut out any ginger guys, if we find out there is a higher chance of them to fail? i dont think so right? i mean spending that time to test for training is just a cost that come in looking for the best, be it man or woman

There will be additional costs associated with it. In addition to that 3 out of 4 women fail to meet combat standards in Marine bootcamp. These roles have been traditionally male only, unless you're gaining an actual advantage in allowing women in, there's no point in spending the money.

I think that any PERSON capable of doing any job should be able to get the job. It's really that simple. If they can do the minimum the men can do, then they get the job. Many women can, and many women cannot.

And if there's a job a woman is better suited for in the military should she not be put in the position where she can be of the most help? Or should we hold others back on account of her? By that I refer to how the military has been lowering minimum requirements for different services because women CAN'T meet the minimum. The British special forces lowered their requirements because a woman had never met the minimum. If a woman could have done the minimum... so be it. I wouldn't be in favor of it, but so be it, I can't stop her. But there are virtually no women who CAN do it. The result is that people are trying to be politically correct and make it easier for women to BE on the front line. That's more so the issue I think than anything else.

@EpicDweeb If she's doing the same work as a man, then she should get the same job as the men with those abilities. There are plenty of women who deserve the right to work on the front line. There are plenty of men on the front line who should not be. Get real. It's not all politics. Most women joining the military never see action, same as most men joining. Different jobs after they join have different requirements before they are assigned. Men get kicked out every day for not meeting the male requirements as well. Perhaps they are a bit ridiculous.

Again if that is what happens then okay... but the issue is that people are changing the requirements so that women can meet the minimum. It's not a matter of women being able to do the same job, and a lot of the point is that most women CAN'T do the same job. They can meet a minimum, but they cannot match the men. If they could it would be a different issue, but they can't. Well... maybe they can in Scotland. Scottish women might be able to match up against American marines.

"Women are not as strong or physically capable as men" its both true and fake. That depends on the culture.

There are cultures where women have been allowed to perform the same activities and have the same jobs as men, and in those cultures women are as strong and capable as men, and even some are stronger.

There are cultures where gender roles are strongly diferentiated, and in those cultures women are weaker.

Do not generalize.

I agree that women from cultures that have made them weaker should not join the armed forces, as they aren't capable of performing such tasks.

1

0|1

0|0

myTake Owner

No, it's a biological fact. It has nothing to do with culture. And I only generalized in the title, if you refer to what I said underneath, I said women are less physically capable on average - which is 100% correct.

Name one culture where women are on average equal or stronger than men.

Then look at testosterone, which men produce much higher levels of as it's a male sex hormone, much like estrogen is for women. Explain why the MALE sex hormone is one of the leading hormones in the development of strength, endurance and muscle mass.

Then explain why when looking at ALL of our closest ancestors, just like us, it's usually the males who are bigger, the males who are stronger, the males who do the hunting. The fact females have to give birth for a period of time and therefore being unable to hunt during that time, should be enough proof that the male's role is to be physical, hunt and provide for her and the child during that time. Or is female pregnancy cultural as well? Were men told they couldn't have babies in certain cultures and that's why men don't have babies?

Everything in the first sentence seems like retarded sjw talk but anyway 2, 3 and 6 are the points I agree on and don't agree with 1 4 or 5 (and I'm not gonna get into the ones I disagree on cause it would only start an argument), but I do see where you're coming from with this. There are some jobs that women shouldn't have and there are jobs that men shouldn't have, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't have the choice to be able to do it if they want to

That is the smartest answer I can recall. However a woman must have the strength not to slow down other troops. And then their is the recent news. A Marine was sharing a fox hole with a female soldier when he could not release the empty magazine and reload his M-16. The enemy was advancing so he yelled "SHOOT, SHOOT". "Oh do I have too? His tush is so cute".

I mean, this is a fight that the woman asked for she claimed to be able to beat any man and she couldnt even beat one of her friends let alone an enemy , this is not a day to day situation at the grocery store in the military she is expected to be beaten like men if she can't do that she doesn't belong there, you think the enemy will spare you for being a woman? ... on second thought they might, but will rape you for days afterwards

Damn feminazis and your poor arguing skills. Women are less physically capable than men, biologically speaking. Between a young man and a young woman on the exact same physical training regiment, the man will almost always have better results than the woman will. That’s just simple biology. We, men, have the testosterone, the muscle builder. Don’t get mad at us because you were born with an extra X chromosome instead of a Y XD

Women can last though more than men. Our bodies store fat in a different way than men, so we can last longer without food. We can survive through more. Men might be stronger than women on average but women are tougher.Along with that, many women ARE just as capable as men. We have EVERY right to fight alongside men

5

4|1

0|11

myTake Owner

And you're a woman serving in the military are you? What's your experience? What do you have to say to the overwhelming amount of women who have failed to complete infantry training, what do you have to say the the women who have had to endure serious injuries and disabilities as a result of being forced to undertake the same training as men?

And war isn't about rights. It's about capability and completing the mission and objectives. If adding women to infantry does not improve infantry, there is no point in doing so. Particularly when considering the cost associated in doing so.

@1derfulguy That's the biggest problem with woman,Lying won't get you anywhere and I would like to see your evidence pointing to the "Fat theory" and I am telling you in advance "I am student of Medical science"(3rd year of MD), so don't try to lie to me.

Who the hell in the world said, Woman are tougher than man?If I through a spider or cockroach in your closet, you won't even enter the room. Woman are weak, mentally and physically accept it or if you like I can provide you with scientific evidence regarding it.

Feminism uses the government to make sure ladies are respected but,Government is providing it, you don't own it and of-course don't earn it either. So good-luck with anyone respecting you in future cuz Try to own, rather than ask for it like a beggar."Man own it and you should do the same" and if you took scientific approach to it. NAhh evolution is not going to take new step here and you will end up like every female gender in animal kingdom===Below man

Please for GoD sake read your High school course again,Fat only provide energy by glyconeogenesis but a solider also need protein, fatty acid, vitamins and minerals to survive.High school use to teach these things but I am not sure, now after reading your response.You need protein or amino acid to repair the dmg due to physical injury and woman can' even hold a pee properly and menstruates to waste the Nutrients and you were talking about the toughness !

"Women can last though more than men. Our bodies store fat in a different way than men, so we can last longer without food. We can survive through more. Men might be stronger than women on average but women are tougher."

What Guys Said 36

I agree with you that it makes no sense to have women in direct combat roles. That's not a reflection on their bravery, but just common sense. If you had a brother (or yourself) who was wounded on the battlefield, who would you want to go get him and carry him back to a medic aid station? A 135 pound woman (no matter how fit) or a 190 pound guy? And with women on the front lines of combat you're going to have the entire dynamic change. The male soldiers will change what they do because of the female presence, even if it's only subconsciously. They will be covering for the deficiencies in physical capability of the women soldiers, and that will impact the mission. But I do believe women should be subject to the draft because they fill other vitally important roles in the military.

Have you been in the infantry?I think the viking, gaul, and Kurdish women would disagree with you.

I personally don't have much of an opinion on the matter. If a person can perform just as well as another person I don't see any value in denying them.

4

2|2

0|0

myTake Owner

We're talking about modern advanced fighting forces here. Highly trained units. There is an issue when considering the additional costs involved and changes to a group dynamic that does not need to be changed.

I don't know. I know that they have been instrumental in several conflicts. I also know that as a matter of rights women should be able to defend themselves just as much as men. I see no reason to deny them the right to defend their country as well. Particularly if they are able to perform to the same standards.

It's not about defending 'yourself', it's about defending your country. Individuals who enter the military forgo their idea of 'self' and work as a team and if adding women to the infantry doesn't improve capability, there is no point. Particularly when considering the costs associated with it.

What costs are you aware of? I don't know which country you're from, but in America we spend about 85 million a year for Erectile Dysfunction medication for our soldiers/ retired. The Kurdish women have demonstrated that they can do both, and in antiquity some of the strongest societies allowed women amongst their ranks.

Additional costs associated with sleeping and bathroom facilities for women. Additional costs in training that results in no return when considering 3 out of 4 women fail to meet Marine combat standards in bootcamp. Not to mention medical concerns which many women will face if they attempt to stress themselves trying to meet standards that have been set for men.

In regards to that 85 million, you should have emphasized the 'retired'. The vast majority of that money is going to veterans. Any veteran, man or woman has earned their right to receive benefits such as that when they retire. It is NOT an inherent expense that must be paid in order to put men on the front line, it's irrelevant. Putting people on the front line is about capability, women won't improve it. Simple as that.

You keep referring to these Kurdish women, put them through an SAS selection course and then we'll talk.

The primary cause is biology, not sexism. Women have biological challenges to fighting in battle that cannot be trained away. Women in combat get hurt more easily and cannot sustain fighting for as long as men, simply because their bodies are different. Even physically gifted women are profoundly physically less capable than men.

"Marine teams with female members performed at lower overall levels, completed tasks more slowly and fired weapons with less accuracy than their all-male counterparts. In addition, female Marines sustained significantly higher injury rates and demonstrated lower levels of physical performance capacity overall"

A female mixed martial arts fighter named Ronda Rousey refused to fight transgender fighter Fallon Fox because of these differences in bone structure and build.

Tamikka “Boom Boom” Brents, who did face Fallon, noted: “‘I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not because I’m not a doctor. I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life, and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right.’ Fox’s grip was different, ‘I could usually move around in the clinch against other females but couldn’t move at all in Fox’s clinch.’”

They shouldn't be. But there is a difference. These sport organizations are privately owned and could do that [legally, though I think it's wrong]. But when you have the US government and a group not about entertainment, but about warfare, you should have the people with abilities, not only based off of biological sex.

So you'd like to see male boxers fight female boxers, would you? You think men should hit women? The reason there is separation because female ability is not on par with male ability and it would not be moral or fair. The same applies in combat.

I didn't say it applied to everyone. You're taking that out of context. In the context of top boxers, the top male boxers will be at an advantage compared to the top female boxers.

Like I've said, allowing women in infantry will mean additional costs that are not needed. We already have enough men who are competent and meet the standards in infantry. There is no need to spend more money in order to open recruitment to a pool of people who, on the balance of probabilities, will be LESS ABLE to fulfill the role than what we've already got.

Issue is it's not necessary, like I've said numerous times. There are enough men who already fulfill the standards. There is no need for additional money spent in order to include a pool that on the balance of probabilities, will be less successful. I'm repeating myself.

I wouldn't, I'm sure if we were invaded and situations became dire, civilians would arm themselves and fight if they so choose. It would be every man or woman for themselves. However we're not in that situation, thankfully.

I have no idea where you people come up with such things! I worked as a translator for American troops in Iraq and there was few female soldiers and they saved lives including my life. They have heavy equipment, they run, they kick ass and they save lives and they are women. I don't give a damn what people say, women can be as much as men are, fire fighters, MMA. sports, body builders, instruction workers, doctors, engineers , what ever they want. I worked with females troopers or any kinda of military they are awesome, heroes

3

1|2

0|2

myTake Owner

Never said they weren't heroes, but you haven't actually countered the reasons I've given.

Because you have no idea what you are talking about. copying from Dr google doesn't mean you know all the things about female soldiers. You have no idea what kinda of physical strength or the mental strength. I've been there, seen it, fought by they side. One person says women shouldn't blah blah blah and blah blah blah , guess what! They don't give a fuck, the go front lines, they do the best they can and i dare you you say this to a female soldier face to face ;)

And our country would be much better served if these kick ass women soldiers served in their own all female division. Enough with the gender bending! These failed bullshit social experiments have no rightful place where something as important as national defense is concerned. I rest my case!

" i dare you you say this to a female soldier face to face " No point in commenting if you're incapable of reading what I've said. This is exactly why I mentioned that you haven't countered any of the reasons I've given, all my reasons are reasons well known within the military. My last point was based on a female officer who, so I wouldn't dare to say it to her face, even though she has even stronger views on the topic than I do? Pathetic..

I never said that women shouldn't be allowed to serve, just not in a men's unit. Many of our top generals have resigned over these gender issues. by the way, rape and sexual harassment are off the charts thanks to our gender blind military. The 1991 Tailhook scandal was a national embarrassment played out over the national news media where more than 100 United States Navy and U. S. Marine Corps aviation officers were alleged to have sexually assaulted 83 women. So maybe you need to learn something about basic biological gender differences. Just because a women happened to have saved your ass on the battle field doesn't change the big picture! Speaking as a taxpayer, I demand reform!

I disagree with you here. I'm all for women in combat, women being drafted and women in the military. The only catch is that they should only be allowed to join and all female military force with equally proportioned funding. Our present unisex gender neutral military has turned national defense into a laughing stock and this madness must stop. Right now we have women's basketball, women's tennis women's soccer and women's colleges. So why can't we have an all women's military?

Also, here's another good reason why we don't need women in command positions in a men's military. This is disgraceful! Enjoy!

Fair play. Women's corps used to be more common and it would allow missions to be better suited to them and they can be held to a female standard rather than having to reach standards designed for males.

this is the dumbest shit i've heard all day... then again, it's gag. if a chick is fit enough to serve and wants to do it, then let her. most of this is asshat logic that's bitching for the sake of bitching that has nothing to do with the ability to serve other than you finding a reason to complain.

it pretty much is... a lot of your reasons are simply flat out stupid. increasing unnecessary costs? fuck, we just had tax cuts and federal programs, but raised the budget less than a month ago $700 billion. the military spends more on air conditioning alone than the entire nasa budget and the president wants a military parade using goddamn tanks for no actual reason. air force 1 refrigeration just ran up a 24 million tab on taxpayer money... get the fuck outta here with that weak shit

Ok, so you've now mentioned one point I've made. It's an additional cost for NO benefit. If you think choosing not to spend money on something because it offers no improvement to capability is stupid, you've got some serious issues.

no, cause i'm not indulging your stupidity, especially when others have already explained them... not 1, not 2, but 3 people who've served in the military and told you your opinion is objectively full of shit, which it shouldn't take to realize that.

uh, huh... i do like your mental gymnastics for going anon. and don't confuse being unable and wanting to engage in a proper debate. but usually, when i engage in a debate with someone, it generally requires the other person to not say something even half as stupid as the shit you spewed in this mytake. like i said earlier, i'm not indulging in stupid shit.

Yeah, you're not indulging in it of course. Yet you still manage to continually comment, it's just you continually comment nonsense. I mean I could maybe understand if you had other things to do and didn't comment, but that's not true is it? You want to comment, just you lack the ability to say anything relevant or intelligent. Nice try.

well, 1 cause i'm not doing anything else right now beyond watching tv and making dinner, and 2, this is somehow more competent than the crap you managed to write a mytake about. lol, the 1st response i did, i addressed your take, which you said was bullshit despite giving facts and figures, so if that's the case, i'm not going to waste time talking to someone who's just going to back up dumb shit. please don't give yourself that much credit.

You've acknowledge one point, which I countered with pretty much stuff I've already said and then you stopped saying anything about it. You say you've got time, time to comment nonsense and that's it? You're not proving anything other than you're hear to talk nonsense. You're clearly not a lawyer.

trust me, you are towards the bottom of the totem pole whom i'm seeking respect from. let's get that straight. but i'm glad you hold yourself in that high esteem. let's put it in a way that maybe you can understand. i'm not going to respect or attempt to have a semi intelligent conversation who wants to debate whether putting your head in fire will hurt your face

I'm not talking about myself, I'm talking about people in general. Anyways, on the basis that you're incapable of putting 2 brain cells together and bringing forth an intelligent and objective argument and instead resort to 'your points are st00pid', your opinion is therefore invalid and there is no point in continuing this conversation. Good day.

I disagree.If they can pass the tests (and the tests are of the same difficulty), why not? Probably means they are more driven to achieve than males of a similar fitness level, which can be a good thing. Lots of males probably fail and cost money too. Find areas where they excel, everyone has different good points. I have not been in the military but I imagine that driving a tank does not require you to have a heavily build (though loading it may be another matter), someone else mentioned they make good snipers. As for infantry, again if they are physically capable of it, go ahead. The argument about a 'boys club' is not a good one, would you rather have that than extra troops (although you seem to disagree, I'm going to assume they are capable) at your back. Also, most modern militaries have a lot more support troops than combat roles anyway.As for competing in martial arts, in my one although most competitions are split by sex, practice certainly isn't. I constantly get done in by females who are way better than me (if they have years of experience on you it can make a huge difference).

1

1|0

0|0

myTake Owner

The majority of women can't pass the tests and often end up with long lasting/permanent injuries in attempting to do so. There will also be additional costs leaving no need for it when considering we already have sufficient quality within the ranks.

Many of the elite infantry ranks are a 'boys club' if you want to call it that. It's what's proven over thousands of years of combat. It's a hostile environment and only the people who will fit in will make it.

From what I heard from a friend in the military, permanent injuries can occur regardless of gender. As for elite infantry, that is a rather different story. As they are often required to be the most fit etc. I suspect it would be rare for a woman to have the physical capabilities required. Doesn't mean its impossible, just very difficult, I would also add that for many the tests are often also bonding experiences (as are most highly brutal situations with a team), and so may help integration if passed. As for the 'thousands of years of combat', historically the reasons for not letting women go to war were that they were required to bring the population back up after a large percentage of the males were killed. It is much easier to do that with a few males and many females than slightly more males and drastically less females.

Much higher percentage of injuries in women. Traditional male only infantry roles have standards that are set for men, many women have to push their bodies too hard and stress themselves in attempting to reach these standards.

But that's true, there are women who are serving in tank crews who have managed to get through, like you said and it would seem feasible for more women to get into combat roles like that. There are many women who serve in air combat roles.

However with infantry, it's just it's a very masculine environment. There might only be one or two women who could reach the standards and make it in, they'll be surrounded by many men, in a very traditional, testosterone filled environment. It can be quite hostile at times and I don't believe women would successfully integrate into this environment and not prove a distraction.

Tank crew and the female,Dude are you idiot, tankers have very Huge pressure on their shoulders and lives are dependent upon them in the war cuz tanks provide support to infantry. Modern MBTS are almost the same and a little mistake by you,Say good bye to 5 member crew and the brothers on ground, you are supporting or even say good bye to the battle.Tank battles require extreme mental endurance to begin with.

@AlphaGhost Yes, but mental endurance is not a physical trait. I would assume that individual from both sexes are close to equally capable of developing that to the necessary level. If you have information to the contrary I would love to hear it. Please note that I am not saying that tanks do not play and essential role, rather that their usage does not depend on physical fitness.

Dude, Who told you that females are mentally strong?I am student of Medicine (MD or MBBS, whatever you called it) and only thing science projects is that, female are emotionally and mentally weak. There is also plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that,Male gender is more intelligent due to higher amount of grey matter and Woman history of doing anything significant for science speak for itself tooNobody want a emotional and crying shit to command a tank, that can't make judgements in the seconds.WAR is extremely emotional thing, you think its easy to see a brother die.Brother that you used to live, eat, drink and smoke cigarettes with.Whole world is not idiot dude, everybody would love to force woman to work cuz they use o2 and eat Food, everybody would love to have a return but its not just feasible.I support "equality" not feminism cuz both are different things.If you want equality then say goodbye to female rights cuz you have to earn them and pave the way forward.

Male use to oppress cuz females are too weak to stand up for themselves and it will always be like this.You can't just hire males to stop male from preying on weak.They were weak, that's why they were oppressed and still are but now Politicians use them for their shit by the word of feminism.Why the black woman are not allowed in feminism?cuz its white thing idiot, Try to see the world for what it really is.

Battlefield is a extremely harsh environment and woman are not fit for it.There is plenty of scientific evidence supporting it and anyone want it, he can ping me to let me know.,,.but still woman must be used in battlefield otherwise, their population will increase :)

A lot of these are not good reasons as to why women shouldn't serve combat roles. I am a veteran and I served alongside women that were just as capable of fulfilling those roles.

I agree with the first point, combat is a matter of life and death, there is no time for contemplation over moral dillemmas.

Women compete against men all the time and win. Many of the women I served with had no problem physically overpowering the majority of the men they served with. The responsibility lies in the command to place only those women who are physically capable of performing that duty, some (just like their make counter parts) are unfit for duty.

Gina Careno would kick the shit out of you and wouldn't break a sweat. Talent and control of the martial arts is more important in a combat role than sheer physical strength.

5. Fuck your brotherhood this is AMERICA, you don't like it you can git out.

6. Fuck you I'm a veteran take that cyclical logic and shove it up your flaccid asshole you ignorant civilian twatwaffle fucktard.

She wasn't the only sniper but I'm just using her as an example. There are famous female snipers in every army really. Some people are built for different front-line tasks as women tend to have better vision than men when it comes to distinguishing colors while men are better at tracking items. So in real-time combat men will prevail not due to strength along but genuinely improved reaction time but when it comes to targeting and gunfire women are better with stationary targets, such as what snipers tend to deal with at long distances. Also the physiological differences in women and men make for easier marksmanship to a degree such as center of gravity.

Lol what a silly Take. If war is such a burden on men, how come so many volunteer? Super condescending to not think women capable of making that choice for themselves.

Besides. it's not like you don't have weedy little guys in the military. Women are more conscientious on average, hence likely to stay more fit. Modern warfare is hardly physical. It's more technical. Pretty much anyone can do the basic stuff. Norway even has an elite female unit. They're better shots than men.

I did my national service which was firefighting, rescue and environmental cleanup. We were about 100 guys and 1 (attractive) girl. She was MORE than capable, and she had CHOSEN to do it. She was more disciplined and competent than many of us guys. Some guys tried to sneak into her room, but she dealt with that pretty calmly. She was cool.

Lol such a dumb argument. But convenient if your agenda is no women in the military. The military overspends like mad on things like new fighterplanes. We are talking billions of dollars down the toilet. And you're talking about a few extra bathrooms and dorms for women. Smh. Israel seems to think it's worth it to have women do military service.

Lol they're also designed to line the military-industrial complex's pockets. And they were planned before drones became widespread. A mind-boggling sum has been spent on the F-22 (which is such a cool machine that I kinda don't mind), as well as the F-35. But I guess your argument is similar to Trump's about why he didn't want transgender people in the military: because of the health costs. Which turned out to be laughably small.

Everyone thinks it's a playground and it's their turn on the swings. As a veteran of the 101st Airborne I say say pack a unit with these women, send them to the hot zones and when the body bags start rolling in we can await the cries of how it wasn't fair.

My question is WHY DO YOU WANT TO JOIN?Is femininity useless? It is something I took away watching Black Panther.Sure there are tons of women in it but all seem to be doing men's jobs, while men are still doing their own jobs. So is everything women traditionally did completely useless? Are women useless unless they become men? Does femininity have no place in the modern world?

Men still aren't allowed to be house husbands/stay at home fathers. For that to even happen, some woman would have to find a jobless guy attractive and then marry him. Men are still expected to be the providers, they are still expected to earn more than their wives.

So in both men and women femininity and feminine traits are being killed off or at least it looks like modern "feminists" want to kill those traits off.

Can someone please tell me how that little blond girl is supposed to carry me to a safe zone? I'm 6'1" and weigh 216lbs/98kg... Side note, ambulance paramedics are mostly male because of this reason, same goes for firefighters.. I'm for equal opportunity but not when it jeopardizes safety..